On Sat, 28 Dec 2013 16:42:16 +0000 "Richard W.M. Jones" <rjones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 07:52:04PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > > No. There's a bad one, which is AutoQA. The problem with it is it's > > more or less considered obsolete now as far as new development > > goes; the devs are working on Taskotron to replace it, but I don't > > believe it's ready for test contributions yet, unfortunately. > > > > Once we have Taskotron up and going (which I believe is aimed for > > the first half of 2014), we can start adding more automated tests, > > which we'd very much like to do, but I don't think anyone's keen on > > adding extra tests to AutoQA at this point, as any time spent > > implementing them and keeping them working takes away from time > > spent developing Taskotron. > > Please can I *urge* the Taskotron developers to fix the major > deficiency with AutoQA: Allow package maintainers to flexibly upload > tests to run on their package. Ideally these tests would be contained > in dist-git; for example Taskotron could look in the current branch > for a 'test.sh' file and run it. Thus allowing the developer to > associate tests with the package, have them run after a build, and be > able to change/disable the tests at any time. > > (I did read the Taskotron wiki page before posting this .. I could not > see any place where this AutoQA shortcoming would be fixed, but my > apologies if this is already planned) Kamil already covered this a bit but I wanted to add a few more details. One of the primary reasons for replacing AutoQA with taskotron is to make it easier for folks to contribute checks. AutoQA's implementation just isn't capable of doing that in a reasonable fashion. We haven't gotten into the specifics of how package-specific checks would work yet, but one idea was to keep them in the package's git repo. That being said, it's still going to be a while before taskotron is ready to take user-submitted tasks (package specific checks, new "non-core" checks etc.). There is still a lot of work to be done and I want to make sure that the core workings are solid before we start adding too much additional complexity. I'm planning to send some stuff out to devel@ for feedback in the near future once the next proof-of-concept system is up and running. I want to make sure that we're making something that'll be useful for packagers but I also don't want to be pestering devel@ too much :) Tim
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
